As I finish my last day at my present company, I found some photos that might be worth sharing.
In addition to the smattering of super-luminaries there were numerous regular luminaries of the organometallic world as below. All great guys, in my experience.
Salve Regina is beautifully situated along the Newport Cliff Walk. The school is a coeducational university founded in 1934 by the Sisters of Mercy.
Here is the definition of ethnic cleansing provided by Wikipedia.
Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal such as deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.[1][2][3][4][5] Both the definition and charge of ethnic cleansing is often disputed, with some researchers including and others excluding coercive assimilation or mass killings as a means of depopulating an area of a particular group.[6][7][8]
Maybe the US is truly concerned about the legality of the millions of illegal aliens within its borders and nothing else. Shipping them out of the country would be an act of law enforcement then. While the GOP members who are spearheading the upcoming mass deportation may be following the letter of the law, the broken laws pertaining to their supreme leader, a felon actually, are easily overlooked. He is more good than bad I suppose.
Given the well-known animus towards those not of European decent, is it just a coincidence that Americans are deporting a very, very large number of them? Certainly, the majority of those to be deported could be identified as coming from a different culture than ours- you know, obese, ignorant and cynical Americans. And, those from Central and South America are likely to be a bit tanner colored than common specimens of the pasty white American couch potato. This alone makes them easier to apprehend.
My guess is that once the Trump manhunt is underway, a place to concentrate them will be necessary. It will have to be a lock-up sort of place because we can’t have them just walking away. A remote location because the NIMBY reflex will not allow them near population centers. I’m thinking the concentrating camps will be along the US-Mexico border.
If we decide to bus them, will Mexico cooperate by allowing the buses into their country? If we fly them, will the Mexican authorities allow the planes to land? And if they do, will they be allowed to deplane and enter passport control? Or will they be denied entry at this point, passport or not? Final question: can they keep the air miles?
If they don’t ship them out right away, how long before the camps become an apartheid situation?
Look at all of the awful words I’ve used- ethnic cleansing, concentrating camp and apartheid. And, all in the context of America, land of the free and home of the brave, and … all men are created equal …
This is not the America I remember going to school in. Half of the electorate has put in place a despicable wannabe dictator and felon plus a republican guard of rabid elected followers. This is a moral disfigurement of the United States of America. Somebody put a drop cloth over the Statue of Liberty until this is over. It’s embarrassing.
This solution of deportation of millions of illegal immigrants certainly has the stink of ethnic cleansing to me. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope so.
“Technological triumphalism” is a term that occasionally surfaces, encapsulating the belief in human capacity to resolve almost any issue through the innovative use of technology. While technological progress has led to pivotal breakthroughs, such as rational pharmaceuticals, aerospace and the transistor, it has also given rise to the means to magnify age-old human tendencies towards destructive behaviors. As our tools and methods evolve with technological advancements, so too do our desires and avarice, often intensified by the fresh opportunities these new technologies bring to the table.
As an example of technology bursting on the scene producing both good and bad consequences, consider the Haber-Bosch process for the industrial manufacture of ammonia, NH3. The Haber-Bosch process has been called the most important chemical process in the world. An industrial product like ammonia can split into several streams. On the plus side, cheap and available liquid or gaseous ammonia for fertilizing crops was a boon for mankind in terms of increased food production. As a chemical feedstock, the combination of ammonia and its oxidation product, nitric acid, led to the economic production of the solid fertilizer ammonium nitrate.
Another and wholly different product stream involving the oxidation of ammonia (Ostwald Process) is nitric acid production. Nitric acid is required for the manufacture of materials including high explosive nitrate esters like nitroglycerine and nitroaromatics like TNT, picric acid and a great many other explosives. Explosives are neither inherently good nor bad- their merits rest on the shoulders of the users. When used for construction or mining, explosives are a positive force in civilization. However, they cast a long, dark shadow when used to destroy and kill.
Fritz Haber: Ammonia and Zyklon
A good example of unanticipated consequences of a technology uptick is in the story of the German chemist Fritz Haber. Haber won the 1918 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his part in the invention of the Haber-Bosch synthesis of ammonia. It is estimated that 1/3 of global food production relies on the use of ammonia from the Haber-Bosch process or some improved version. Haber has been widely praised for his part in the invention of catalytic ammonia production using atmospheric nitrogen. These are important developments, but … [Wikipedia]
As a German nationalist, Haber was also known for his considerable contributions to German chemical warfare through WWI. Early on, Haber suggested chlorine as an improved chemical weapon over tear gas during WWI and was later involved in the development of Zyklon B as a fumigant, pesticide and later a weapon of mass murder.
There is contradictory information as to who actually developed Zyklon B. One source claims the inventor was Bruno Tesch, Gerhard Peters and Walter Heerdt while another claims Haber developed it. The composition and story of Zyklon B is subject to confusion in a Google search. The actual contributions of Tesch and Heerdt to the production of Zyklon B was to produce sealed cannisters of HCN adsorbed onto a sorbent like diatomaceous earth along with a cautionary eye irritant to signal the presence of the HCN in the air. The early use of Zyklon B was to delouse clothing, ships, warehouses and trains. The Nazis began using Zyklon B to murder human beings in the concentration camps beginning in 1942 as well as delouse their clothing to stop the spread of typhus.
The identification of Zyklon, Zyklon A and Zyklon B is a bit confusing. Zyklon was originally developed as a pesticide. When exposed to moisture it hydrolyzed to form hydrogen cyanide which was the active toxicant. Lachrymatory warning additives were blended in to alert those exposed. Eventually, the Nazis requested that the warning additive be removed since it spooked the prisoners.
Tesch and Stabenow founded Tesch & Stabenow in Hamburg in 1924. The next year they became the sole distributors of Zyklon, manufactured by its patent holder, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlings-bekämpfung mbH (German Corporation for Pest Control), shortened to Degesch. Tesch & Stabenow was the exclusive reseller of the “Zyklon” which was produced by Degesch (founded 1919) whose director was Fritz Haber.
Tesch & Stabenow was founded in 1919 as a subsidiary of Degussa with its first director, Fritz Haber. Later, in 1936, Degesch was owned by its parent company Degussa along with IG Farben and Th. Goldschmidt AG (now Evonik). The company was said to be extremely profitable from 1938 to 1943 with sales of Zyklon B to the German government and Schutzstaffel (also known as the SS). After the war, Bruno Tesch, co-founder and owner of Tesch & Stabenow, and “director Karl Weinbacher were convicted and sentenced to death by a British tribunal and executed in Hamelin Prison on 16 May 1946.”
The only practical difference between the three Zyklon products was that Zyklon B contained and delivered HCN directly while Zyklon/Zyklon A requires water to decompose it, releasing HCN.
Cyanide
The history and chemical manufacture of all the various cyanides is rich in diversity. The word ‘cyanide’ is usually reserved for ionic compounds or hydrogen cyanide, HCN, or those that release cyanide anion readily.
The cyanide group, :Carbon-triple bond-Nitrogen:, is a functional group found in many natural sources.
The cyanide group, -CN, on an organic molecule is usually bound more strongly by covalent bonding though not often connected directly to a carbonyl group (C=O) where it is susceptible to loss as with Zyklon/Zyklon A. It is the connection of the cyanide group to an ester carbonyl group that is behind the ability of Zyklon/Zyklon A to release free cyanide. In Zyklon/Zyklon A, the carbonyl group (C=O) is subject to aqueous hydrolysis producing CO2, CH3OH and HCN.
The word ‘cyanide’ is probably best limited to situations where the anion, :CN–, is present as a discrete chemical species. Common cyanides in use today are potassium cyanide, KCN and sodium cyanide, NaCN. KCN in water is commonly used in gold mining to selectively extract gold as a soluble cyanide complex, replacing the hazardous mercury amalgamation method. When covalently bonded to an organic molecule or to a polymer like polyacrylonitrile, the cyanide functional group is strongly bound. When CN is a feature of an organic substance where it is covalently bound to a carbon atom, it is referred to as a ‘cyano’ group, ‘nitrilo’ or ‘nitrile’ group. These words signify that the CN group is not present as a discrete anion but rather is tightly bound to an organic framework. This is less likely to spook the general public.
A swerve into the weeds with acrylates
It is said that neither Fritz Haber nor Carl Bosch were fans of National Socialism in Germany in the 1930’s. Haber claims to have done his WWI gas warfare work for Kaiser Wilhelm as a German patriot. Intimidated by German laws aimed at Jews and Jewish colleagues, Haber (a Jew converted to Catholicism) left Germany in late 1933 for a position as director of what is now the Weizman Institute in what was at that time Mandatory Palestine. He died in the city of Basel, Switzerland, while enroute to Palestine at age 65.
Haber’s work in chemical weaponry included the use of chlorine gas which was chosen for its density and would sink and collect in enemy trenches. Chemical warfare in WWI began with an idea from volunteer driver and physical chemist Walther Nernst (yes, that Nernst) who suggested in 1914 the release of tear gas at the front. This release was observed by Fritz Haber who recommended chlorine instead and later supervised Germany’s first release of chlorine gas at the Second Battle of Ypres in WWI. Well known German scientists involved in the development of chemical weapons included chemist Fritz Haber, chemist Otto Hahn, physicist James Franck and physicist Gustav Herz. Of the 5 scientists, Nernst included, all would receive a Nobel Prize in their lifetimes.
‘Haber defended gas warfare against accusations that it was inhumane, saying that death was death, by whatever means it was inflicted and referred to history: “The disapproval that the knight had for the man with the firearm is repeated in the soldier who shoots with steel bullets towards the man who confronts him with chemical weapons. […] The gas weapons are not at all more cruel than the flying iron pieces; on the contrary, the fraction of fatal gas diseases is comparatively smaller, the mutilations are missing”.’ Source: Wikipedia.
I don’t mean to demonize German scientists specifically since the 20th century was peppered with engineers & scientists from many countries who engaged in weapons of mass destruction research & development, both in the private and government sectors. Naively and from afar to nonscientists it might seem like scientists are a benevolent brotherhood or sisterhood of “do-gooders” bent on the application of science for the benefit of mankind. To be sure, all whom I have known understand the importance of basic science to society at large and are of high moral character, mostly. Note, though, that the phrase “do-gooder” is actually an insult. According to Dictionary.com it means “a well-intentioned but naive and often ineffectual social or political reformer.”
Even Yugoslavia’s Tito had chemical weapons and a nuclear weapons project out of fear of an attack by the Soviets. In the end the project amounted to little more than some research institutes to support the nuclear project. Eventually Tito cancelled the project. Yugoslavia did have its own deposits of uranium ore and developed a method of extracting uranium concentrates from it. In October, 1958, they had a nuclear criticality event within a teaching reactor of their own design.
It is hard for me to grasp that chemical weapons are a notch of evil above other conventional arms. Bullets fired from military-style small arms can kill instantly, slowly or cause survivable mutilation. High explosive charges from artillery, missiles, hand grenades or land mines can kill instantly, slowly or cause survivable mutilation. Is this somehow preferable to a chemical attack? Chemicals too can kill quickly, slowly or cause survivable mutilation. These chemical weapons can be either a gas or an aerosol which can deposit on surfaces and retain toxicity for some period of time. Both gases and aerosols can drift with the wind making them trickier to ‘aim’ and are subject to dilution by cloud or gaseous dispersion. Many have suggested that chemical warfare is more useful for its ability to terrorize a population than to kill.
High explosives are point sources of shock waves followed quickly by sharp flying metal fragments. Like all point sources of dispersing energy, the intensity of the shock falls off as some kind of inverse square law and fragments soon fall to the ground. The bullet or the artillery shell are projectiles that can be aimed, often with great precision, and deliver their kinetic energy or explosive charge to a distant location. This applies equally to cruise missiles, drones, jet fighter ordnance and other flying mayhem.
All of the weaponry mentioned above are the result of the application of chemical energy.
Rest stop along the highway of knowledge
At some point for all of us whose areas of specialty may overlap with weapons technology, we have to decide how we will confront it. We can pitch in to defense R&D and make a contribution or we can contribute to civilization in other ways. For myself, I chose to work on improving life through chemistry. Others can find better ways to destroy things.
For me, military aircraft are a guilty pleasure. I am absolutely in awe of the technology and the people who build and get them into the air. The stratospheric art of aerospace engineering is endlessly fascinating. Still, they are weapons platforms that exist solely for the purpose of killing and serving devastation. I understand the necessity of countries acquiring such deadly flying machinery. The monster Putin has provided the latest reminder of the importance of military readiness.
High explosives as a paradigm shift
The research and development of nitrate esters like nitroglycerine in the 1830’s and later nitroaromatics like nitrobenzene, picric acid and trinitrotoluene (TNT) rapidly led to the sometimes-inadvertent discovery of their detonability. The discovery led to the creation of a new class of explosives, marking a significant shift from the relatively slow burning of gunpowder to the high velocity detonation of “high explosives” such as picric acid or RDX. Unlike gunpowder, which needed to be confined to produce an explosion, the introduction of detonable nitroaromatic and nitrate ester explosives resulted in a large increase in the sudden release of energy. The availability of a relatively safe and easily produced explosive like TNT facilitates the leap of thought to the realm of armaments, especially when the explosive could yield considerable profits.
Having been born, educated and now nearing retirement from a scientific career in the USA, there are things about this country I am proud of and things that I’m ashamed of. I take ‘pride’ to mean that ‘I value my association with’. I take ‘shame’ to mean my negative reaction to and regret with certain instances of moral turpitude.
What shame I may have in my country’s actions and policies over time isn’t necessarily due to uniquely American traits. We’re humans after all with all of the pluses and minuses that go with it. However, the pluses and minuses in conjunction with our burgeoning economic power over time and the rich natural resources we hold allow us to impose our will with in-house treasure. Conveniently, we don’t have to invade another country for oil or iron ore to drive our industry. However, our lust for cheap oil & gas has led to considerable trouble.
American Pride
I’m proud of the founders who disconnected from Great Britain despite the sacrifices in blood and treasure during the late 18th century and founded this unique republic. While the founders wisely developed a founding document to avoid the problems of monarchy and establish a functioning republic, there were significant omissions such as banning slavery or establishing equal rights for women.
I’m proud of our steady progress in all of the various technologies that have removed the sharp edges from what nature has historically imposed on us: Disease, predation, high infant mortality, brief lifespans and primitive life. In many ways the march of technological advancement has been a benefit to all of us and the rest of the world as well.
I’m proud of the advancement of women, albeit too slow, in our civilization. The march forward is not nearly finished, but to have advanced women from chattel to some level of equality is a plus.
I’m proud of our country for the advancements made towards global peace and prosperity since WWII. The years of our liberal democracy since then are unmatched in history.
I’m proud of the positive global interventions for peace we’ve made since the start of WWI.
I’m proud that my country has been a prominent global influence for peace and justice.
I’m proud of my country’s positive moral actions toward feeding the hungry and spreading medical care.
I’m proud of our periods of military restraint and our caution with nuclear weapons after having once used them.
I’m proud of America’s role in restraining Chinese, Japanese, Russian and Soviet imperialism.
American Shame
I am ashamed of our part in the worldwide patriarchy and the lethargic progress towards equal rights for women.
I am ashamed of the horrors that befell the Native Americans throughout the American settlement of North America. The murderous expansion by fortune-seekers and land-grabbers across the continent and the penury and ten thousand privations forced on them is inexcusable and remains a bloody disfigurement on the American character.
I am ashamed of our part in the slavery industry in the Americas and the number of people who had to die in a bloody civil war to end it.
I am ashamed of my country’s covert meddling into the affairs of other nations as in Southeast Asia, South and Central America, Cuba and elsewhere.
I am ashamed of the many wars and conflicts we have participated in over absolutist ideologies and the deep senselessness of our political parties.
I am ashamed of our enthusiastic part in the development of nuclear weapons and our perverse cleverness in optimizing their design.
I am ashamed of the influence of capitalism on internal and foreign policy and the greedy idolatry it brings.
I am ashamed of the neoliberal right turn the country is presently taking and the acceptance of autocratic enthusiasm asserted therein.
I am ashamed of America’s reelection of a felonious man of low moral character and proven dishonesty and especially the large-scale support he enjoys among voters.
After 26 2/3 years on the job, I’m being let go. Actually, my position and director title are being eliminated as of December 24, 2024, and nothing else is there for me. My company is 4 years into the new ownership, a venture capital company, and it’s likely that thoughts of the big payoff are in the air. In preparation for this the CEO, just back from a board meeting, is cutting costs and polishing up the balance sheet for an impending sale. Or so some believe. The mighty and all-knowing overlords of Oz are looking to cash in their chips.
Anecdote
Early after the buyout I had the occasion to speak with one of the board members before their first on-site meeting. This fellow was the retired founder of a chemical company and owned a personal business jet which he flew to the meeting himself. It was an Embraer Phenom 100 which can be flown by a single pilot and under instrument conditions. Both he and his wife were instrument rated and signed off to fly the twin engine jet as a single pilot. As we got to the meeting room, he was greeted by the board chairman whereupon they began to compare notes on their business jets- a Phenom and a Gulfstream. I left since I had no jet of my own to discuss. I was not dejected but merely amused at the different existence these kings of the world occupy.
Back to the story
Having joined the company in 1998 when it was a family operation and coming from a small liberal arts college teaching background, I adapted well to the isolated, almost tribal, company life. Outside influence was scarce. We were inbred and operating on a remote desert island. I got to wear many interesting hats in the organization, and it made for an interesting job despite the lack of structure. Many years later though and with new ownership, the problem became one of wearing too many hats. My job description got overloaded with diverse activities and defied any orthodox job description. My career had become the kitchen junk drawer. I was warned by a friend and boss not to do this. His counsel was to leave and find a more orthodox corporation, but it was just too interesting. In the end he was right. I should have left about 2004.
These days job descriptions are built to exacting standards. None of the cross-disciplinary general chemist stuff that I was used to. I think this is part of what did me in. Early on I had traveled much of the northern hemisphere on sales and sourcing trips. I managed the sales and marketing department for 6 years, did patent analysis and IP due diligence, wrote and submitted a patent application, did some R&D, led accident investigations, conducted R&D on the pyro- and hydrometallurgy of several rare earth minerals, started a process safety department, conducted reaction calorimetry experiments for over 12 years, and finally jumped into TSCA regulatory compliance when we were short staffed. After 3 years I’m still in regulatory compliance.
I have no interest in retirement and halting all chemistry-related activity and doddering into my retirement years because I really dig chemistry. Sitting on the porch whittling a stick and telling stories is not what I want. But a chemist without an organization is hard pressed to continue being involved with actual chemistry. It is true that for everything there is a season. The transition to the next season has begun.
Historically, scientific papers have been not where loud, confident proclamations are made about academic research results. The trend has been a sort of unpretentious modesty to avoid overconfidence and exaggerated claims. A sort of snobismus. Instead, conclusions from research results tend to be more guarded in the interpretation of data. An article in the Scienceinsider section of the AAAS journal Science published 28 July, 2023, has reported that of 2600 papers published in Science between 1997 and 2021, there was a drop of about 40 % in the use of hedging language. Researchers in the study scanned for about 50 terms including “might,” “probably,” “could,” “approximately,” “appear to” and “seem.” They found that these hedging words dropped from 115.8 per 10,0000 to 67.42 per 10,000.
Analyses of other scientific journals and a 2022 paper that examined nearly the same group of papers from Science have found growing use of a positive, promotional tone—expressed with superlatives such as “groundbreaking” and “unprecedented”—which may lead to exaggerated claims.
Source: Science, 28 JUL 2023 BY JEFFREY BRAINARD.
The authors suggested that researchers are increasingly unwilling to undersell their work and instead, are using more hyperbolic language such as “groundbreaking” and “unprecedented.”
In an earlier study by C.H. Vinkers et al., published in BMJ, 2015, finished his paper with the following paragraph-
“Currently, most research findings could be false or exaggerated, and research resources are often wasted. Overestimation of research findings directly impairs the ability of science to find true effects and leads to an unnecessary focus on research marketability. This is supported by a recent finding that superlatives are commonly used in news coverage of both approved and non-approved cancer drugs. The consequences of this exaggeration are worrisome since it makes research a survival of the fittest: the person who is best able to sell their results might be the most successful. It is time for a new academic culture that rewards quality over quantity and stimulates researchers to revere nuance and objectivity. Despite the steady increase of superlatives in science, this finding should not detract us from the fact we need bright, unique, innovative, creative, and excellent scientists.”
If you sit through a week of presentation sessions at an American Chemical Society national meeting or walk through a poster session, you’ll see a mix of enthusiastic young chemists standing next to their posters and you’ll sit through talks by more established researchers anxious to emphasize the importance of their work. Giving a talk or a poster at a meeting is inherently a promotional activity. It is getting the word out about you and your work in a particular area in front the scientific community and possibly some influential people. It also is something to add to your resume.
Self-promotion by scientific publishing and participation in meetings, called “ballyhoo” in the movie business, is a great way to expose yourself to greater and more frequent opportunity. Make no mistake, the quality and frequency of publications is a very important metric of your accomplishments and potential. This is a sad reality for some and a fortunate reality for a few, but it is reality.
It is hard to draw much from the above research on the hedging frequency as a metric of … what, the unseemly disappearance of proper modesty? The competitive environment of “big academic science” for funds and exposure to impress colleagues and the rank and tenure committee is inevitable. It has been like that for a very long time, but perhaps hidden under the veil of snobbery.
You never know who you might meet at these venues for academic ballyhoo. I once loaned my laser pointer to Al Cotton (who kept it!) and I met Glenn Seaborg at a poster session at the Disney Hotel in Anaheim, CA. I had too many gin & tonics before I spoke with Seaborg and I’m sure that it showed. At a symposium at Purdue University in honor of H.C. Brown (in attendance), I got to see two prominent scientists get into a rather strong “discussion” during a question-and-answer period about who discovered what first. Professor Suzuki (Suzuki coupling) from Japan said something that got under the skin of prof Negishi (Negishi coupling) from Purdue, so they began with point-counter-point exchange (a type of coupling?) which soon accelerated into an argument. As it got more contentious, they switched to speaking Japanese and continued their argument. After a short time, they realized it was best to just sit down as they were providing a “Clash of the Titans” spectacle. This is not a criticism, just an amusing anecdote. Guys like this should battle it out in public more often.
Self-promotion using exuberant language isn’t inherently bad. It is likely that others have already judged you based on far smaller misperceptions. If someone wants to embarrass themselves, let ’em.
The reader should know that I would much prefer to write about sciency topics like chemistry or mining geochemistry. But I have become aware of a political tsunami that could arrive at our shores in 2025. It is a planned sequence of actions aiming to convert our American civilization, its economy and politics so drastically as to be unrecognizable by the standards of today. It is breathtaking in its sweep and amounts to nothing less than a sociopolitical revolution. I refer to “Project 2025” organized by the Heritage Foundation. Short of a mainland invasion of North America, I am hard pressed to think of something that will so drastically alter the course of American civilization. Republicans are seeking to emplace a permanent conservative state. My view is this- screw ’em.
At present, the US is the global hegemon and has been one since WWII. Many nations resent this, especially China and Russia, and seek to become the major hegemonies themselves. They strongly desire to knock the US off the sandpile and take up residence for themselves. Trump’s America First policy would allow Russia and China to step up as US foreign influence is purposely relaxed. As the unity of the US/EU and NATO collapses, Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe will rise as they move forward to the reestablishment of a Soviet-scale state. China’s dominance along the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malasia and Australia will grow, as they intend it to.
The expansion of Chinese and Russian influence will come as a result of the loss of global US influence. As technology and the quality of life expands across the world, US hegemony will necessarily diminish somewhat. What we can and should hold onto is our standing as an influential and thriving democracy.
To my many friends, colleagues and readers, all I can say is that now is not the time to shrink back into your shells and wait out the 2024 political season in the US. If your visual acuity takes you past your nose you will see that Project 2025 will strongly alter the function of the federal government. This is a step towards a dictatorial architecture that will directly affect our lives and our standing in the world.
Hyperbole? Visit the link and think it through for yourself.
Project 2025 is nothing less than a coherent plan to deconstruct the administrative function of the federal government, especially under the executive branch. The many designers of this project believe in the so-called “deep state” which, they say, is firmly nested in the ponderous federal bureaucracy. As a story it has the necessary elements of a conspiracy novel. There are protagonists, antagonists, narrators and enough historical detail to make their storyline convincing. In my view, the deep state exists in the form of dark money and the subsequent influence over politicians, mostly the recipients of big conservative money.
The US media will be of little help here and will relegate themselves to documenting the downfall for the infotainment of everyone around the world. Decades hence, dissertations and documentaries will be produced attempting to explain the collapse to authoritarianism to puzzled citizens.
But Project 2025 is more than just a rejiggering of the administrative apparatus of the federal government. Significantly, it aims to intensify the many powers of the federal bureaucracy directly into the hands of the president by aligning the federal workforce job security to be politically accountable to the president.
It represents a transition from a primary emphasis on expertise to that of political reliability for one’s career-sake. The plan will go into effect the first day of the next Republican president’s administration, be it Trump or otherwise. This is what the plan states in clear English.
In our federal government, laws are passed and placed into the Unites States Code, USC. This content is then translated into the Code of Federal Regulations, CFR, for promulgation. The CFR is a structure of regulations based on the USC for practical application and enforcement.
It is easy and quite lazy to claim that the US federal government is completely broken. It seems to be hypersensitive in some areas and intractably slow elsewhere. Nonetheless, much of it functions like it should behind the curtains. Do we really want a government that is incontestably and quickly responsive to the whims of a president? Or should there be checks and balances built into the system? Handing over more power to a morally bankrupt person like Trump is grossly irresponsible, stupid and may not be reversable. Other than a foreign invasion, this could not be more serious.
I was an elementary school student during the 1960s. In the Midwest where we lived the social climate was rather conservative and not especially contemplative. Rock-n-Roll music and race riots were not something that we cozied up to. Adults were generally uncomfortable with the Beatles and their long hair as well as the noisy “racket” they made on stage. Many adults were still spitting with rage at communists who were hiding behind every tree.
The Viet Nam war was raging in Southeast Asia and much of America bought into the Domino Principle cited by politicians. The John Wayne movie The Green Berets was playing in theaters and it resonated with a great many Americans.
We watched Lawrence Welk and Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom on the television which was broadcast out of Des Moines. It was the lovely Lennon Sisters on Saturday evening and all of the accordion you could stand followed by Wild Kingdom’s Jim Fowler wrestling alligators on Sunday. They always had some ridiculous pretense for capturing the wildlife but we eagerly bought into it.
After the adventurous Wild Kingdom on Sunday was the congenial face and lilting voice of Walt Disney on The Wonderful World of Disney. Walt would always start the show with a few minutes of grandfatherly monologue introducing the show. When Walt spoke, all seemed right with the world, at least for a kid.
In the absence of travel or a more worldly family, this kind of TV programming expanded our knowledge of the outside world, albeit along some very narrow and artificial pathways. In those days the TV network censors were very strict and did not allow controversial or titillating content onto the airwaves. In some ways television propagated stereotypical behaviors and notions of social norms and in other ways it went past older norms and explored new ways of thinking. This is especially true with the advance of women’s rights.
In my world of the 1960s, women’s fashion was to evolve beyond the stodgier clothing of the 1950s. Dresses were giving way to pants, mini-skirts and short shorts. In those days, we were led to believe by puritanical adults that a slip showing below the hem of a dress was a social faux pas and worthy of a snicker.
But away from home in junior high school, things were changing. Most of the girls were experimenting with the new fashion and we boys were uniformly agog over it, though the teachers thought the girls were walking on the wild side.
By 9th grade, I had already been to a few house parties with black lights and fluorescent posters as well as painfully loud acid rock music blaring away. During this time I developed a taste for Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin and classical music. Some kids were smoking tobacco and there were even open containers of beer scattered around. If there was pot smoking, I wouldn’t have recognized it even though marijuana plants were plentiful in the countryside. Just another weed to kill.
In 1972 I moved to another state and fell in with a different group of people in high school. Science nerds they were and electronics was the thing. Discrete components were just giving way to integrated circuits and you could buy chips at Radio Shack with AND, OR, NAND or NOR gates to build logic circuits. Still, discrete components like transistors, diodes, capacitors and resistors were yet in large-scale use.
During this time Bobby Fisher was playing Boris Spassky in Reykjavik, Iceland, for the world chess championship. In high school at this time I actually started a chess club and we even played a tournament with another school. We got demolished 5 1/2 to 1/2. I scored the draw.
I can now understand the puzzlement my older relatives had with the way the newer generations are going. But, this is how the US has been in the 20th and into the 21st centuries. We’ve been riding a wave of great change since at least the revolutionary war and it is the birthright of each young person to explore the opportunities before them. Despite the grim looking global conflicts of today, we have much to look forward to. As someone famous said, we are standing on the shoulders of giants.
This is an updated re-release of an old post from Dec 10, 2010. I have applied a bit of polish and a spit shine, but not much. Since I wrote this, political correctness has morphed into wokeness.
==========
I keep hearing comments by conservative people who are obsessed by what they call political correctness. In these commentaries, some kind of sarcastic parody is made regarding an alleged trend to ban the use of the phrase “Merry Christmas”. Neoconservatives latch onto this like barnacles on the bottom of a tramp steamer. Inside their heads they imagine that a cabal of liberals are scheming to take their guns and their religion from them.
At the most recent liberal cabal meeting, we decided to let the gun owners keep their damned guns. There was a vote, however, where a proposal was made to require gun owners to take turns cleaning up the blood and guts after a shooting and to pick up the funeral costs.
Ok, that was a joke. Actually, we voted on something else.
If other liberals are like me, then not only do we not want to deprive them of their damned firearms and religion, minimally we would simply like to be out of shooting range.
Christmas has a secular component and practice that even a bitter, crusty, non-religious liberal like myself can feel comfortable with. But as far as possible insensitivity to Christians, they’ll just have to get over it.
In my limited sphere I don’t know of a single liberal who is trying to replace “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays”. The only time I hear of it is when a conservative repeats it sarcastically as a token of disapproval. Only conservatives carp about this. It’s a red herring promulgated by that famous dead yapping cur himself, Rush whatshisname, in the name of ratings.
——————
I’m moved to comment on what makes some people liberal. A recent article in Slate was written by a conservative, Daniel Sarewitz, who seems to be genuinely perplexed at the apparent trend of scientists, or at least academics in general, to be liberal. It is though he is talking about a smallpox epidemic. While I have no idea as to the conservative/liberal ratio of scientists and academics, I can say that from my perch on a small and obscure branch of the tree of science, scientists tend to be overall a bit left leaning. However, make no mistake, there are plenty of conservatives in the group as well.
Indeed, many of the industrial chemists I am in contact with are libertarians, religious conservatives or just plain-vanilla orthodox conservatives. So, from my limited data set, Sarewitz’s complaint appears a little specious to me.
He probably refers to the life and eco-sciences, earth science, astronomy, big-time-physics, etc. I suspect that the balance is different in these fields.
But why would scientists trend towards a liberal viewpoint? I have some ideas. First, the scientific approach to the world relies on study, measurement and analysis. Scientists tend to study analytically or, to use another term, critically. Critical study of the physical world requires a willing suspension of belief. A formal education in science takes the student through many, many opportunities to see how scientific knowledge was acquired by successive approximations and sometimes led into fruitless cul-de-sacs. A scientist must keep a loose grip on theoretical viewpoints because experimental results frequently contradict fundamental assumptions. Fame and glory in science goes to those who tip over the apple cart of concepts and theories. All scientists are excited at the prospect of looking at something in a new way or bringing a puzzle into sharper focus.
“But, it’s just a theory …” I hear this ignorant comment frequently. A theory is just a model of a particular aspect of reality that is then strengthened or weakened by experiment. It is not uncommon for theories to be tossed aside in the junk pile when data or a better theory comes along. Science advances by successive approximation. One does not “believe in” a theory. It is not a “devotional” thing. You agree with it to some extent or you dispute its accuracy. It’s an “analytical” thing. A theory does not have to be completely accurate to be useful. Even a faulty theory may provide certain perspectives that are useful.
Many conservatives whom I know also appreciate study and measurement. Numbers people are greatly influenced by numerical data regardless of their political stripe. But in the religious realm there is often a trend towards devotional study rather than critical study. Devotional study is about finding a greater understanding of doctrine or greater fidelity with a catechism of beliefs.
Religionists upset with the notion of the separation of church and state often assert their right to be heard and to express their religiosity in public spaces. Some might take this as a simple matter of freedom of speech. And if that is all the religionists want, that would be fine. But if you look closely, they don’t want just speech, often times they want government endorsement of their doctrine. They want equal time in the public schools. They want to bring the civil sphere into alignment with their beliefs. “Go ahead and teach Darwinian evolution, but Creationism should get equal time.” Creationism is just a Christian conservative flavor of denialism. It is the denial of evidence in favor of a magical world of spirits and things that cannot be physically evaluated.
Religious services are about the veneration of the sacred. The word “sacred” means that which is beyond question or understanding. In a real sense, holding something sacred is to set apart a concept or doctrine from critical analysis. Religionists are not interested in a public critical analysis of their precepts. They are interested in broader devotional coverage, i.e., the fruits of evangelism.
It isn’t unusual for a liberal person to be compelled to do critical analysis of their basic beliefs over a lifetime. The very notion of spiritual sacredness is antithetical to one who seeks analytical truth. The policy that some belief systems are beyond analysis is simply a form of thought control and is more suited to the iron age than the present. Being a nontheist I hold human life sacred. I’m very partial to kindness too. But this does not require that I believe in a supernatural universe.
For a great many people, college is a time and a place for intellectual experimentation and exploration. It is a place where you can have chance or purposeful encounters with new ideas, people and careers that were beyond your previous horizon. The university is an institution where critical analysis of the great world systems takes place. The active examination and betterment of our world is the realm enjoyed by the progressive. Progressives push the boundaries of knowledge and thought. Sometimes focused analysis reflects well on our human or national institutions and sometimes it does not. But knowledge hidden is knowledge abused. That universities are loaded with liberals is a natural outcome of the youthful intellectual adventure the students are taking. It is a journey of discovery of the self and one’s place in it. It can be both joyous and a bit disappointing. New lands and new boundaries are there to be found.
The current efforts by American conservative Christian nationalists to scour out all traces of liberalism in education is worrisome and frankly, a little stupid. The assault on New College by the governor of Florida is a dark example of state government taking a giant step backwards by imposing one-sided political controls on a public resource. This in itself shows that American education has failed a great many people. America has generally failed in citizen’s knowledge and practice of civics and the long, troubled path of history to the present.
Just take a long look at the MAGA movement. Make America Great Again. When was this actually? If you look below the surface in any period of US history, you’ll find political problems and upheavals galore. There have always been social struggles in our history. Formerly venerated American Heros like Buffalo Bill Cody and the near extinction of the buffalo. General Custer and what he was really doing at the little Bighorn. Or the revered westward expansion with the Gold Rush and migration of the pioneers which were part of our celebrated manifest destiny. These were national enthusiasms that have been endlessly celebrated and woven into textbooks for generations of school kids.
The ugly truth to much of the actions of our ancestors is that a great many innocent people died as settlers began to occupy North America. Land was stolen, European diseases were spread, native Americans were murdered and robbed of their land and resources and their children were reprogrammed in government schools. Survivors were herded into reservations with little in the way of amenities or natural resources that we take for granted. Treaties were made and broken. This is also part of our history.
There is no benefit in self-flagellating ourselves over the sins of the past. However, what we need to do is to take note of the mistakes of the past and steer a better path to the future.
Do I believe that American conservative thinking and liberal thinking are equally right? Not at all. I’ll take progressive liberalism any day.
It’s very interesting. The post with the most hits on this blog is for one I wrote May 15, 2008, titled Neutron Lethargy: This Weeks Obscure Dimensionless Quantity. It receives hits nearly every day. Is it revealing atomic secrets? No, it does not. Here is part of it-
“Neutron lethargy, or logarithmic energy decrement, u, is a dimensionless logarithm of the ratio of the energy of source neutrons to the energy of neutrons after a collision: u = ln(Eo/E), or, u2-u1 = ln(E1/E2). So, if you plot a curve of E vs u (E = Eo*exp(-u)), you see an exponential decay of energy per unit collision showing that the greatest delta E’s of energy result from the early collisions.
Basically, it shows that in order to obtain thermal neutrons from fission decay neutrons, you have to contain them so that they can rattle around and dump energy before they fly out of the area of interest. As to the number of collisions that are needed? Well, that is a different issue.
Source- Glasstone & Edlund, The Elements of Nuclear Reactor Theory, Van Nostrand, 1952, p 146.”
Now mind you, this does not necessarily mean it was a glistening contribution to the nuclear zeitgeist of 2008. It’s more like the title attracted clicks. Excellence and clicks don’t overlap much. It shows that my intuition on what a popular post looks like is completely off.
Lamentations on Chemistry 